Duty to Warn

AUSTIN, Texas -- My fellow Americans, the state of the union's finances is enough to make an Enron accountant gag. When George W. Bush took office, he was handed a going concern. Projected annual surpluses from 2002 to 2011 were $5.6 trillion. In its most recent projection, the Congressional Budget Office says it expects $1.4 trillion in total deficits from 2004 to 2013. Bush's new future spending proposals -- including everything from the goofy manned-flight-to-Mars to the promotion of marriage -- already total an additional $2 trillion.

            When Bush took office, the national debt was $5.7 trillion and his first budget proposed to reduce it by $2 trillion over the next decade. Today, the debt is $7 trillion. Last year, Bush predicted a deficit of $262 billion. According of the CBO, the deficit is currently $480 billion. Bush plans to cut biomedical research, health care, job training and veterans funding, and that still leaves a projected deficit of $450 billion.

The father of President Bush the Second called it “the vision thing” -- which he was widely presumed to lack. By early 1987, Time magazine reported, George H. W. Bush was using that phrase “in clear exasperation.” Then, as now, journalists seemed to clamor for presidential candidates to seem visionary.

     Many politicians have grandly quoted from the Book of Proverbs: “Where there is no vision, the people perish.” The biblical invocation plays into the media-fed notion that great leaders succeed when they persevere according to their own lights.

     But such popularized concepts of political leadership -- encouraged by countless journalists -- are long on vision and short on hearing. With apparent self-assurance, politicians often have a way of filtering out the messages they don’t want to hear, even from their own supporters.

 AUSTIN, Texas -- My long-reigning favorite Bushism has now been edged out by a fresh contender I cannot resist. The old fave goes back to Oct. 4, 2001, when Bush, still trying to reassure a shaky nation, said, "We need to counter the shockwave of the evildoer by having individual rate cuts accelerated and by thinking about tax rebates."

            I didn't think he could top that, but there is something so winningly confused about my new No. 1. This is from Paul O'Neill's report of the large meeting in November 2002 about a second round of tax cuts. O'Neill argued against it, noting that after 9-11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing and the nation faced urgent problems.

            Everyone expected Bush to rubber stamp the plan, but he surprised them by asking: "Haven't we already given money to rich people? Why are we going to do it again?"

Like many progressives, I've felt torn between Howard Dean's and Dennis Kucinich's respective strengths. I've resolved this conflict so far by embracing my indecision and giving money to both. Kucinich has spoken out, eloquently and thoughtfully, taking stands that challenge the conventional wisdom of our time, and point toward powerful long-term alternatives. Dean's stands are more cautious, but he's revived the Democratic Party by being willing to challenge Bush on a host of key issues, and brought more ordinary citizens into electoral politics than any Democratic politician in years. When Dean says, "America is not Rome," it contrasts starkly with an administration that's tried its best to make us the world's imperial policeman.

Many pundits say President Bush is sitting pretty, but this year began with new poll data telling a very different story. A national Harris survey, completed on Jan. 1 for Time magazine and CNN, found that just 51 percent of respondents said they were “likely” to vote for Bush in November, compared to 46 percent “unlikely.” When people were asked to “choose between Howard Dean, the Democrat, and George W. Bush, the Republican,” the margin for Bush was only 51-43, and when the survey focused on “likely voters” the gap narrowed to 51-46.

     While other polls have some different numbers, clearly the race for the White House could be quite close. But one of the obstacles to Democratic success is the pretense of having a chance to carry a bunch of Southern states. Actually, for a Democratic presidential campaign in 2004 -- in terms of money, travel time, rhetoric and espoused ideology -- Dixie is a sinkhole.

     In 2000, the Bush-Cheney campaign swept all of the South, albeit with electoral thievery in Florida.

AUSTIN, Texas -- In Texas, where the border is a constant presence in our lives, no one is mistaking President Bush's immigration proposal for a brilliant new departure in immigration policy, or even for a ploy to get Hispanic political support. What we have here is the old bracero program, a guest worker program, and it primarily benefits one group and one group only -- big business. And that would be OK, if other parts of the program totaled up to a net improvement in the current situation. That's what we need to look at and weigh.

Ralph Nader plans to announce this month whether he'll be running for president in 2004. Some believe that such a campaign is needed to make a strong political statement nationwide. But if Nader does run this year, what kind of support -- in the form of volunteers, resources and votes -- could he reasonably expect?

Results of a nationwide survey, released in late December, provide a stark look at the current inclinations of people who've been part of his electoral base. After receiving about 11,000 responses from readers on a core e-mail list, the progressive online magazine AlterNet reported back: "While 27 percent of you voted for Nader in 2000, only 11 percent say you would vote for him in 2004."

This year, Nader would be lucky to receive 1 million votes -- a far cry from his 2000 total of 2.8 million.

AUSTIN, Texas -- Mr. Bumble observed that the law is an ass, and he'd never even seen the congressional redistricting plan drawn by Texas Republicans. Sigh. I just hate when Tom DeLay and Karl Rove get away with a dirty deal like this. The University of Texas is now represented by Lamar Smith of San Antonio, I'm in a district that runs to the Mexican border, and two blocks north of me, they're in with Houston. Help!

As one who relishes our state's incontrovertibly bizarre political mores, I must confess I love the sheer awfulness of this map. It is, in its own way, totally awesome and worthy of the truly noble tradition of lunacy for which Texas is so noted.

Speaking of said tradition, I have failed to give sufficient recognition to our only governor, Goodhair Perry, who is adding to the old je ne sais quoi in truly impressive quantities. Goodhair gave such an amazing performance at his end-of-the-year press conference that I was forced to call a perfectly reliable reporter for the Dallas Morning News and ask if it was a joke.

AUSTIN, Texas -- Good grief, the tree's not down yet, the bills aren't due and the diet doesn't start until the bowl games are over, so what's with the unseemly haste? Not even time to take a deep breath here in 2004, and already we're like the white rabbit -- behind, breathless and late.

            Not that I suspect this administration of managing the news -- horrors, no -- but a number of unusual objects were dropped into the holiday punch bowl whilst the rest of us were still caroling and wassailing, including quite a few bad nooz items for the Bush team.

            One interesting piece of information that got completely lost earlier in the capture of Saddam Hussein was the resignation of David Cay, the guy in charge of the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The search for WMD in Iraq has effectively ended. (Liz Carpenter said, "I must have seen 20,000 shots of them looking through Saddam's hair and into his mouth -- they're not gonna find the WMD in there.")

We can argue about George Will’s political views. But there’s no need to debate his professional ethics.

     Late December brought to light a pair of self-inflicted wounds to the famous columnist’s ethical pretensions. He broke an elementary rule of journalism -- and then, when the New York Times called him on it, proclaimed the transgression to be no one’s business but his own.

     It turns out that George Will was among a number of prominent individuals to receive $25,000 per day of conversation on a board of advisers for Hollinger International, a newspaper firm controlled by magnate Conrad Black. Although Will has often scorned the convenient forgetfulness of others, the Times reported that “Mr. Will could not recall how many meetings he attended.” But an aide confirmed the annual $25,000 fee.

     Even for a wealthy commentator, that’s a hefty paycheck for one day of talk. But it didn’t stop Will from lavishing praise on Black in print -- without a word about their financial tie.